File talk:Firefox-fonts-advanced.png

Warrants "advanced" description

The traversal to subject image is:

Click: "Firefox" menu

Click: "Options" menu item
Hover mouse pointer over: "Options" menu item to display pop up menu

Click: "Options" menu item
Click: "Options" pop up menu item

Click: "Options" dialog box "Content" tab
which contains "Fonts & Colors" group box
which contains ONE (1) Font choice and two (2) buttons labeled "'Advanced...'" and "Colors"

Click: "Advanced..." button
which displays subject image dialog box.

Granted other browsers don't use a tiered Font user interface but Firefox does. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. But that is not how we treat things in Wikipedia. We here try to avoid peacock terms that add no value and use the simplest terms of identification possible. There is only one Fonts dialog box in Firefox. In my opinion your emphasis on "advanced" is not only unencyclopedic, but also unlike English language.

But I am not going to quarrel about this. I'd like to be easygoing. Oh, and thanks for the cheeseburger. It looks delicious. :) Fleet Command (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute "There is only one Fonts dialog box in Firefox." The first Font control, is within "Fonts & Colors" group box (see traversal above) and second is the subject image dialog box itself accessed via "Advanced..." button where the second is clearly more "advanced" than the first.
"Peacock terms" does not apply; characterization is factual statement of software author's two tier Font controls where second is under "Advanced..." button.
Conrad T. Pino (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall requesting WP:3O, which IMO, is preemptive.
I assert "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page." policy violation.
I dismiss the "But I am not going to quarrel about this." disingenuous statement.
Conrad T. Pino (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous? Nonsense. I said I won't quarrel and I still haven't. I never gave any promise about not calling a 3O. If you wish to continue discussing, that's okay with me; but know that by doing so, you will forfeit your privilege. Fleet Command (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on topic here however, I reserve the right to assert policy violation for threatening language, "...but know that by doing so, you will forfeit your privilege." – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You have written "Options" twice more than necessary. You just open Firefox menu, hit Options, hit Contents and hit second Advanced button. Fleet Command (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your traversal works also and I erred writing mine. I correct mine in line above. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Firefox-fonts-advanced.png and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is an opinion of that nature.
I do not think that the inclusion of the word "advanced" in the file name is inappropriate. Firefox may only have one dialog box named "Fonts" but it has, in fact, two font dialog boxes: First, the Content tab of the Options dialog box where one may simply set the default font and size, which is the primary font dialog box, even if it is not called that, and then, second, the one being discussed here, which is the secondary dialog box. To exclude "advanced" from this file title would suggest that this is the primary Firefox dialog box in which to set fonts, which it is not.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 14:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha! Very funny. You totally missed the point. Well, that's what happens when, instead of the main issue, you pay too much attention to side issues like writing a bureaucratically approved disclaimer and all them bells and whistles that set you miles apart from your hypothetical passerby. Well, I'd rather not to waste my time with 3O anymore and just not persist on my position. Fleet Command (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is the traversal wrong? So what he wrote is wrong when he said "buttons labeled "'Advanced...'" and "Colors""?Curb Chain (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Curb, that's what it says; I use FF and looked at it before I opined. Whether I'm doing it bureaucratically or straight up, I'm apparently still missing the point. If you get the point, Curb, please feel free to give a 4O. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you what the dispute is: Description. Conrad wants the description to read "Fonts advanced dialog box in Firefox 11.0" whereas I think the word "advanced" here is redundant, non-English and a peacock adjective. There are only two places where fonts can be set up: Options dialog box and Fonts dialog box. Given 3O is off the point because it talks about the filename. As a filemover, I will never call a 3O for disputes on filenames. I usually consult a peer or an admin about it and avoid wheel-warring. Fleet Command (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read User:FleetCommand message above to mean he sincerely believes rendered 3O applies to file naming only and I've read same to apply to both file name and Description. See below for clarification request. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas rendered WP:3O correctly states Firefox software implements two tier Font controls and concurs "advanced" is appropriate in subject image description, I propose User:FleetCommand revert last edit or clearly concede the issue so I may proceed doing so myself. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How rude! I said I will be easygoing; I never said I will forfeit my opinion or kiss your ass too! So, stop making ad hominem comments and do not weaponizing off-the-point comments when there is no need to do so. Fleet Command (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on topic here however, I reserve the right to assert policy violation for abusive language. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas User:FleetCommand is correct, the rendered WP:3O makes no explicit statement regarding it's scope as applicable to (1) file name alone, (2) Description alone, or (3) file name and Description jointly. I hereby request further clarification and shall notify User:TransporterMan accordingly. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The word "advanced" is clearly redundant and does not help describe the image any clearer. What button labels say are irrelevant. Wikipedia is neither a computer software nor a how-to guide for how a dialog box is accessed.

To TransporterMan: My friend, either you are willing to help or you don't. So please, read everything about the dispute carefully before issuing a judgement. If someone says you missed the point, that does not mean that you have done anything wrong. To err is human, so please assume good faith and if you still wish to help politely ask for clarification.

To Conrad Pino: My friend, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, do not game the system and avoid personal attacks. Always comment on the issue and never on the person. Also, please do not threaten other users even if they wronged you. Most important of all, please do not beat the dead horse. When someone says he or she is not willing to persist on his or her position, do not call them names such as "disingenuous".

To Fleet Command: My friend, you are the senior editor here (in terms of experience), so please act and speak so as befits your character. I had never heard you use such a crude term as the one you used above. It is nearly always better to stop talking than expressing emotions. A word like "advanced" does not need a long discussion like this, so please do not ruin your initial offer of compromise by next emotional responses.

176.9.195.24 (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I decline this anonymous commentary as indistinguishable from sock puppetry. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I get it. self-whack! Having mucked this up thoroughly, I withdraw my prior opinion and I express no opinion in this matter. I'll drop a note on Curb Chain's talk page to ask him to issue a 3O. If he does not choose to do so, please feel free to relist it at the Third Opinion Project. I apologize to all involved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of the issue

Hi everyone: Let's make the issue more clear:

The dispute as I see it is the description of the file on [[File:Firefox-fonts-advanced.png]] which states under ==Summary== and in "Description" ([1] first added with page creation here), removed, readded and removed. The point of contention: "...advanced...".Curb Chain (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The questions that need to be asked are:

Is "advanced" what the dialog says? This does not seem to be the case.
Is using the word "advanced" subjective? It seems so as no where on the program (Mozilla Firefox) does the program describe that dialog as advanced.

Thus "advanced" should not be used to keep within our policies and guidelines of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:PEACOCK.Curb Chain (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: It seems that the traversal states that you have to hover over "Advanced..." in order to go to enter into the Font dialog box. Isn't using the word "advanced" an accurate description of the dialog box?Curb Chain (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I decline this commentary in part as both erroneous and omitting facts in evidence leading to failure of the proposition contained therein. Specifically:

Error 1: "Is using the word "advanced" subjective?" answer overlooks Firefox implements two (2) Font control dialog boxes, a fact in evidence, where

the first dialog box (already described herein) contains

two (2) Font related drop down lists and

aforesaid "Advanced..." Font dialog box (the subject image) access button,

amongst other "Content" controls

and the second (the subject image), exclusively dedicated Font control dialog box, containing exactly

nine (9) drop down lists,

one (1) check box, and

three (3) buttons.

While the first may or may not be uploaded at this time, I assert preparing for such is prudent and encyclopedic.

Error 2: While commentator's second error is not a premise supporting a conclusion, it is evidence of inattention and due diligence failure sufficient to diminish credibility.

I quote the error, "It seems that the traversal states that you have to hover over "Advanced..." in order to go to enter into the Font dialog box."

The traversal above reads, "Click: "Advanced..." button which displays subject image dialog box" and has been so since inception.

I do agree, "Is using the word "advanced" subjective?", is a constructive question as I now conclude I'm guilty of omission by presuming facts in evidence without having done so. I shall correct that in a new section below.

Conrad T. Pino (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the traversal is not the only way to get to the dialog described in [[File:Firefox-fonts-advanced.png]]?Curb Chain (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall presume "the traversal" stated immediately above references the traversal documented at the top of this discussion, the Subject Traversal.

I don't know whether or not other traversals, other than the Subject Traversal, exist as I've not searched thus.

IMO the Subject Traversal warrants weighting over others, if any, since it SEEMS the most likely used.

IMO the Subject Traversal is topic relevant as traversing the "Advanced..." button is necessary therein.

I welcome reviewing any topic relevant evidence and opinions additional traversal investigations bring forth.

I reaffirm commitment to add new section below (as previously stated above) within the next 48 hours.

Conrad T. Pino (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Argument

I beg forbearance and patience for a belated commencement.

This section's future content is available as a work in progress at User:ConradPino/sandbox.

I shall post timely progress reports here to preclude the need to watch "My Sandbox" and sift through fine grained edits.

Conrad T. Pino (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]